From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755445Ab1HUDET (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:04:19 -0400 Received: from science.horizon.com ([71.41.210.146]:41676 "HELO science.horizon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751532Ab1HUDEQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Aug 2011 23:04:16 -0400 Date: 20 Aug 2011 23:04:15 -0400 Message-ID: <20110821030415.18106.qmail@science.horizon.com> From: "George Spelvin" To: linux@horizon.com, w@1wt.eu Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Improve sequence number generation. Cc: dan@doxpara.com, davem@davemloft.net, gerrit@erg.abdn.ac.uk, herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mpm@selenic.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20110821012844.GA15222@1wt.eu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> * Should I worry about 32-bit IPv6 performance, since that's even more >> unlikely to be running heavy loads on 32-bit hardware? > On x86 you're probably right, but there are other very fast platforms > such as ARM, which are used to build routers or appliances, and which > are 32-bit and there it may matter. Thanks for the feedback. Your point about routers is well-taken. It's particularly x86-32 which gives me fits, but I'll keep ARM performance in mind, too. >> * If yes, is this fast enough to be acceptable, or do I need to work >> harder to find more speed? > I'd suggest that the most important is no performance regression. Probably > that if you can bring something which brings back what we lost with MD5, > your work would gain interest. Okay, I'll go back to the drawing board on performance. Damn, this is going to be tough. > I'm copy-pasting here the memo I exchanged in private after my tests, there > is nothing secret in it, so better post the whole explanation : Thank you very much. It helps me figure out what the time budget is.